JUDGMENT : R. DEVDAS, J. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the first appellate Court could have remanded the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration? 2. The appellants herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate shares in the suit schedule properties, by meets and bounds. However, even as the trial was being proceeded with a final decree proceedings arising out of an earlier partition suit in O.S.No.230/1989 was initiated by the preliminary decree holders. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.73/2010 filed an interlocutory application seeking stay of the final decree proceedings. When the said application was allowed and stay of the final decree proceedings was ordered, the same was challenged by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 before this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011. This Court by order dated 17.08.2011 took note of the contentions of the petitioners therein that the earlier suit was a collusive one and the female heirs had been left out and in the subsequent suit, the female heirs are seeking partition, therefore, this Court held that it was evident that in the earlier suit filed for partition between brother’s wife and children, the female heirs were not made parties and now they have filed the suit. Therefore, this Court deemed it just and proper that the final decree proceedings and the present suit i.e., O.S.No.73/2010 have to be clubbed together heard and decided. It was therefore directed that the trial Court should dispose of the cases within six months from the date of receipt of the order. 3. Though the order was passed on 17.08.2011, the trial Court appears to have received a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.20508/2011 on 14.09.2011, as per the endorsement made in the order sheet. Nevertheless, the trial Court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree on 21.02.2012, without clubbing the final decree proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that none of the parties brought the order of this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011 to the notice of the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree without clubbing the final decree proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that none of the parties brought the order of this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011 to the notice of the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree without clubbing the final decree proceedings. When the matter was taken up in appeal, the first appellate Court having noticed the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011, held that it was clear from the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court that there was no compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011 and the trial Court had proceeded to pass the judgment and decree without clubbing the final decree proceedings. Therefore, the first appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court to ensure compliance of the order passed in W.P.No.20508/2011 and reconsider the matter after clubbing the final decree proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the first appellate Court could not have remanded the matter since it was in contravention to the provisions in Order XLI Rule 23 and Rule 23A. Learned counsel also placed reliance on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of P.Purushottam Reddy and Another Vs. M/s Pratap Steels Limited, reported in 2002 (2) KCCR 901 and J. Balaji Singh Vs. Diwakar Cole and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 2402 . 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would justify the decisions of the first appellate Court in remanding the matter back to the trial Court to ensure compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011. Learned counsel further submits that after the matter was remanded, the trial Court has proceeded afresh and afforded an opportunity to those who had not filed the written statement and those of defendants who had not filed the written statement earlier have also filed their written statements and evidence is being recorded. 6. Heard the learned counsels and perused the memorandum of appeal. 7. In the case of P.Purushottam Reddy and Another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the provisions under Order XLI of the CPC before amendment and after amendment. It was noticed that by an Amendment Act, 1976, Rule 23A was inserted in the CPC. Before Rule 23A was inserted in the Order XLI of the CPC, Order 23 was holding the field. It was noticed that by an Amendment Act, 1976, Rule 23A was inserted in the CPC. Before Rule 23A was inserted in the Order XLI of the CPC, Order 23 was holding the field. Their Lordships after examining the change of position after the insertion of Rule 23A, have held that the appellate Court could remand the matter after hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On these two twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23A as it is under Rule 23. It was also held that after the amendment, all the cases of wholesale remand are covered by Rule 23 and 23A. It was also held that in view of the express provisions of these rules, the High Court cannot have recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand because, as held in Mahendra Vs. Sushila, reported in AIR 1965 SC 365, it is well settled that inherent powers can be availed of exdebito justitiae only in the absence of express provisions in the Code. It is only in exceptional cases where the court may now exercise the power of remand de hors the Rules 23 and 23A. 8. In view of the declarations of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, what is to be seen is whether the first appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration to comply with the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011. In the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court was fully justified in remanding the matter back to the trial Court. The provisions of Rule 23 and 23A of Order XLI would apply in the normal circumstances, no doubt. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when this Court in a parallel proceedings had directed the trial Court to club the final decree proceedings initiated pursuant to the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.230/1989 along with the present suit, since it was evident that the female heirs were not made parties and in the subsequent suit they are made parties, in the interest of justice, it was required that both the proceedings should be clubbed and heard together. As rightly noticed by the first appellate Court, the trial Court had received the order passed in W.P.No.20508/2011 on 14.09.2011. The judgment was passed by the trail Court on 21.02.2012 without noticing the direction given by this Court. The final decree proceedings were not clubbed and the parties were not heard. Therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly came to a conclusion that in view of the noncompliance of the directions issued this Court in W.P.No.20508/2011, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to rehear the matter after clubbing the final decree proceedings with the suit. 9. Even otherwise, Their Lordships in the case of P.Purushottam Reddy and Another (supra), have noticed that in exceptional cases, where the appellate Court has noticed that there is travesty of justice, it could invoke the inherent powers and remand the matter for fresh consideration. As noticed earlier, when there was specific directions by this Court that the trial Court should club the final decree proceedings along with the suit, hear both matters together and thereafter decide the matter, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to club the final decree proceedings with the suit and then decide the matter. When it was apparent to the first appellate Court that such a directions issued by this Court had not been complied with, the first appellate Court was fully justified in remanding the matter back for fresh consideration in compliance of the directions issued by this Court. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the disposal of the appeal as above, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed.